About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16
that it's a hard job every day of the week. >> defense secretary chuck hagel and joint chiefs of staff's general martin dempsey testified before the senate armed services committee on the defense department 2014 budget request. the pentagon budget request includes almost $527 billion in discretionary spending nearly 1% decrease from 2013. this is three hours and 45 minutes. >> good morning everybody. chuck hagel, general martin dempsey the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, accompanied by the department's comptroller undersecretary bob hailed for her hearing on department of defense fiscal year 2014 budget request and the posture of the u.s. armed forces we welcome secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before this committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers sailors airmen and marines at home and in harm's way. we could never say that enough. your testimony today is a key component of the committees review of the fy2014 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.6 billion
of defense, we talk about the post office and prepayments being made. there is one truism on both, o s the taxpayer is ultimately on the hook. yes. so it is not an issue is this just a quasi-government organization, both dod and you need prepayments. we're ultimately on the hook the taxpayer is. what concerns me in a time, admitted, mr. chairman your low liquidity. you're not really sure you can get down as low as two days later this year, at a time in which the discussions have been made and i have read about the board of governors and your role. you do believe you have a fiduciary duty in your role to the postal service and in your role, correct? >> mr. chairman, representative, yes. >> that means there's a trust. there's a trust with you and the board of governors not just strictly you but i believe with the postmaster general and others in this situation. what i keep hearing is, well we thought of and we're looking at that. we have a five-year plan that was many years ago. we have discussions that we want to do. we're exploring ideas. these are direct quotes from today, exploring h
of the defense intelligence agency spa capano current thfureat to the national securi. along with the national security agency, the national geospatial intelligence agency and the national reconnaissanceoffice and thinteencen etservices erts of the department of de that are also elements of the intelligence communy thatth direct clapper hits. director clapper while much of the information that you provide to policy makers in putting members of congress cannot be shared with the public because of its sensitivity and classification. the people who elected us to serve deserve the best information that we can publicly provide them. so we are glad that you and the general are with us this morning to do just that. among the challenges that we face is a self-inflicted wound, one with the fact that director clapper has rightly said amplify the other threats that we come from around the world that challenges the and prioritized cuts required by sequestration. this committee is interested in hearing from both of you today about the impact of the fy 2013 sequestration and the impact it's having on the in
of defense is currently spending $10 billion more conducting the war effort in afghanistan this year than was estimated would be necessary. from what we understand, in order to make up for this estimation the department of defense will have to pull from other funds from its base budget, which is difficult because of sequestration and the other long-term spending limits imposed by the budget control act of 2011. the problems with trying to budget and plan for a war a year in advance and how unforeseen costs can arise. at the same time a $10 billion is copulation is a little alarming. -- miss calculation is a little bit alarming. general, can you explain to us how that underestimation occurred? that we insidere u.s. forces in afghanistan under estimated $10 billion for our requirements for this year. i can assure you we have gone back and look at every dollar we have spent to make sure we have spent to good effect. we have significantly reduced the money we are spending in afghanistan. i will go back and take a look at where the projection came from and why we are in the position we are in
heard in my entire 64 years. what is this nonsense that they are spreading? >> the u.s. defense secretary has reiterated the u.s. .ommitment to israel's security jon kay geomet israel's prime minister on tuesday. they have been discussing the terms terms of a multibillion- dollar arms deals. -- chuck hagel visited the prime minister on tuesday. >> israel appreciates deeply the support, the military and security support, that it enjoys from the united states. it reflects a very deep alliance between our two countries in the defense of our common interests and values. nowhere are these values and interests challenged more than by the arming of the terrorist groups by iran with sophisticated weapons. equally, iran los attempt to arm itself with nuclear weapons. >> a palestinian prisoner has agreed to in his hunger strike in exchange for an early release. samer issawi has been refusing food for the past eight months. the strike has led to weeks of protest against israel detention policies. he was due to remain and prison until 2029 but will now be released this year. for more on thi
array to include a sophisticated air defense capability, depending who is operating in. a no-fly zone would not be without cost. >> even though the best testified he could with cruise missiles and within the patriot missiles in the right place is that we could establish a no-fly zone. >> patriot missiles i'm getting out of my league. that is essentially a point weapon. the theory is you could position patriot missiles outside of syria and somehow provide security outside the zone, given the nature of the pastry about then, which is not an area of a project or would be tough. >> and what's fascinating is now you are saying instead of the joint chiefs of staff that it has deteriorated so much that you now have questions whether we should supply weapto rebels are not, which the argues we shod have supplied them back ommended coing to published reports well heta o state, as well as the chairman of the joint chiefs f staff. it's remarkable. see you in the administration figure and say we don't know where the weapons are going. maybe if we help the people of writing from the beginning befor
. is also a number of the defense policy advisory board. and so he goes over to iraq. he's the only member of this board that goes their indices it's a disaster. there's an insurgency mounted and nobody knows what to do about it. now, he comes back feeling really upset because, feeling pangs of guilt because he was advising this administration. he had advocated for this war. his son had recently joined the army and is going to be sent to iran. -- iraq tickets can be said to dismiss. that he sort of help create. so he thinks, well, he has to do something about this. so he sets up a similar in vermont and he goes through his rolodex answer is military journal but he invites everybody to be confined who has written anything remotely interesting about the subject of water. and he comes up with about 30. and they all assembled for five days to discuss these things. the pivotal think about this meeting is not so much what they discussed as that they met. most of these people didn't know each other before. they didn't know of one another's existence. they thought they were out on a limb, here, on
suggested the united states would reduce our missile defense system in asia for exchange -- in exchange for chinese help with north korea. it seems to me even though we are being threatened by nuclear attack by the north korean government, first of all is that an accurate statement? if so, explain that if you would. >> no. not an accurate statement. i think it was corrected while i was over there. there was reporting to that effect. what i -- there was no offer, no deal, no contemplation of it. what i did say publicly and i'll say it again, is that the president took specific deployment steps of missile defense in direct response to north korea. and it stands to reason that if the north korean threat disappears, there would be a logical question of whether or not that same level of deployment is necessary. all i stated was a sort of fact based on the rationale of the deployment itself. >> do you think that the united states should give aid to north korea of some type to temper their saber rattling, which they seem to do, about this time every year? >> no. >> all right. thank you for tho
defense ministers have already begun consideration of the size and mission for a post-2014 force in afghanistan. one factor that will influence that decision is the size and capacity of the afghan security forces. in this regard, the recent decision by nato defense ministers to support maintaining the afghan security forces at the current 352,000 through 2018, rather than reducing the support to a level of 230,000, as previously planned, is the right thing to do. it sends an important signal of our continued commitment to a safe and secure afghanistan and make it feasible for us to have a smaller u.s. and coalition presence after 2014. the greatest challenge to afghanistan's security is not the taliban, but the pakistan- based sanctuaries for militant extremists, launching cross border attacks into afghanistan. pakistan has said it supports a stable and secure afghanistan. but its actions belie its words. the u.s.-pakistan relationship will not be normalized so long as those extremists safe havens exist on pakistani territory. another large challenge to a stable afghanistan is th
of defense. we built a strengthened homeland security enterprise and a more secure america, better to face the challenges we face. the president'sle budget allows us to build on the progress by preserving core front line operations priorities. at the same time, given the current fiscal environment, this is the third straight year that our budget requests reflects a deduction from the previous year. our request is $800 million below the f.y. 2013 enacted budget. our mission has nod changed and we continue to face evolving threats. we've become more strategic how we use these resources. this is coupled with a unprecedented with a fiscal discipline that has led to $4 billion in cost reductions over the past four years in a process we call efficiency review. before i get to the nuts and bolts of the budget i want to talk about sequestration. >> excuse me. can i ask you to pause a little bit longer. if you could pause for a moment dub. we want to get this quarum ieve we have a .nd if i can find -- here we go i would like to take this opportunity to conduct a brief business meeting -- to consi
at a cost of $12 billion. the official position of taiwan's ministry of national defense remains committed to procuring those submarines from the u.s. however, as the u.s. stopped making these diesel submarines many years ago, the sale has been stalled. i know we worked with france and some of our allies on this. could you advise what the current status of this submarines being acquired by taiwan is? and finally, you don't necessarily have to comment on this. if you'd like to you can, but former -- but the former president languishes today in a jail cell in taiwan. to me it smacks of the criminalization of politics. . stoot extent this administration communicates with the president i urge you to urge president mah to do the humanitarian thing, president chen's health is failing. i now yield to you, thank you. >> thank you, congressman. i appreciate it. i'll take that and just follow up on it. let me see what we can do about that. on burma, you are absolutely correct. there will be bumps in the road. i hope not big ones. obviously things are happening today that were unimaginable a few year
. >> you don't want to turn over intelligence gathering to it a criminal defense lawyer and the terrorist. >> shepard: investigators say they want to question the older brother's widow. one friend calls her an all-american girl and accuses her husband of brainwashing her. >> shepard: plus friends and family say goodbye to the girl with a heart of gold. and one week later the nation stops to remember. >> shepard: and good evening from fox news, one week later, the feds have charged the suspect in the boston marathon bombings with using a weapon of mass destruction. charge that could get him death. officials say prosecutors and a judge went to the suspect's hospital room today to formally charge him with the attacks that killed three people and wounded close to 200 others. according to the criminal complaint here. surveillance videos shows the 19-year-old on the cell phone before that first blast. goat, a few seconds after he finishes the call, the large crowd of people around him can be seen to react to that first explosion. then he walks away without his knapsack. having left it on the gr
you were in china that you suggested the united states would reduce our missile defense system in asia for exchange, in exchange for chinese help with north korea. it seems to me that even though we're being threatened by nuclear attack by the north korean government, first of all, is that an accurate statement? and if so, explain that if you would. >> no, not an accurate statement. i think it was corrected while i was over there. it was reporting to that effect. there was no offer, no deal, no contemplation of it. what i did say publicly and i will say it again, is that the president took specific deployment steps of missile defense in direct response to north korea. and it stands to reason that if the north korean threat disappears, there would be a logical question of whether or not th that same level of deployment is necessary. it's all, i stated, was sort of a fact based on the rationale of deployment itself. >> do you think the united states should give aid to north korea of some type to temper their saber rattling, which they seem to do, about this time ever you? >> no. >> thank
disarmament. the reaganites in the defense department were horrified by this and put a stop to it but reagan didn't go all the way with reaganism when he had a chance to end the cold war, especially the nuclear threats. so it's a hard-core republican belief. if you remember the pup pup prime -- republican primaries of 2012, it was not that long ago there were eight or ten republican candidates in simi valley for a debate at the reagan library and every one of them said reagan set the example how maring be strong, reagan did with the soviet union and we should do it today in iran, we should do it -- we were right toy trite in iraq. america should use its power to achieve its spend destroy its enemies. i worked in the cold war and in the middle east. you have 29% of the american people agree with that today. >> richard, do you want to say something? you're leaning forward. >> no. >> okay. we want to take questions from the audience if anybody has a question, and i think there's a microphone somewhere that someone is going to bring up. why don't we start right up here on the aisle, blue shirt.
know, depending on what the government was willing to say to this defense lawyer, whether or not and what benefit he might get as a result of his cooperation. remember, from the very beginning, from the president on down, everyone has said public safety is the first and highest priority. so the first question he's going to be asked is are there more devices and where are they? and, you know, and so if that were the case, i'm not suggesting it is, but it certainly is the first question you want to ask and to get to find any additional devices you would want -- you would want to give him the benefit of that cooperation. so this will have to -- it unfolds very methodically, right, the investigators have questions and in the order of the priority they're going to ask him, public safety will come first. second is to identify any additional potential conspirators who may have been involved in the planning or execution of the bombing. >> all right. fran, stand by. don't go away. we're going to continue the nonstop coverage here. our team coverage of what's going on at boston, wha
on the future of the republican party. noonis beginning live at eastern on c-span2. >> defense secretary chuck hagel testified before the senate armed services committee wednesday. secretary hagel said there is a $22 billion shortfall this year. general dempsey said the department is not sure how this will impact military readiness. this is three hoursnd 45 minutes. >> good morning, everybody. today, the committee gives a warm welcome to general chuck dempsey,neral accompanied by the department comptroller undersecretary bob hale, for being on the department of defense fiscal year 2014. we welcomet secretary hagel on his first appearance as secretary of defense before the committee. we thank all of our witnesses for their service to our nation and to the soldiers, sailors, and marines at home and in harm's way, we can never say that enough. your st today is a key component of the committee's review of the two dozen 14 budget request for the department of defense. this year's request includes $526.60 billion for the base and $88.50 billion for overseas contingency operations , although, as your
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16